Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Thursday that would fine state law enforcement agencies up to $1,000 a day for not reporting officer-involved shootings in a timely manner.

The law, which will officially be enacted in September, was created with the intention of strengthening a current Texas law–passed in 2015–that requires departments to report to the attorney general’s office any time an officer firing their gun results in injury or death.

Gathering data on police shootings has been an issue for the state, whether it’s been through misrepresentation or refusal to comply. A Texas Tribune investigation was only able to gather data on police shootings between 2010 and 2015 from 36 cities that had 100,000 or more residents, totaling less than half of the state’s population. While some precincts were more than willing to put the information on their website, others fought public information requests, gave heavily redacted records, or said they did not keep track of police shootings. Corpus Christi and Pasadena, for example, did not specifically track officer-involved shootings.

Even after the 2015 law was enacted, some departments decided to take their time in filing their reports and reported their data to the state months after the incident had actually occurred. The late responders typically only filed their reports after state publications pointed out that which departments had been slacking.

State Rep. Eric Johnson, the author of the new bill, said that this law will help curtail the inconsistent reporting and provide the state with the data it needs to analyze the issue of police shootings.

“I’m glad that he signed the bill, and I believe that we’re well on our way to leading the nation in getting to the bottom of what causes these fatal encounters between police and citizens, because we’re going to have the data,” Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, said Thursday to the Texas Tribune.

The new law gives departments a 30-day window to file a report after the shooting. Once that window has closed, the attorney general’s office can investigate and notify the department it has seven days to clear up any unreported shootings. After that, the state will be able to fine departments $1,000 a day. All of the money collected from these fines will be going to Texas’ Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund.

The bill did not contain everything that the authors originally wanted. State Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat, was unable to add a requirement for the attorney general’s office to build and maintain an online portal that would collect and analyze police shooting reports to the bill. The addition was struck down on the Senate floor.

Texas legislators might want to revisit that provision at some point. As of this article’s publication, 37 people have been shot and killed by Texas police officers this year, which is on pace to eventually match the total number police killed in the state last year.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Texas Law Will Fine Police for Not Reporting Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

Mississippi Representative Tom Weathersby proposed a bill last week that would prohibit sagging pants in the state. Anyone who commits the offense would be subject to fines up to $100 and psychological and social counseling.

According to Mississippi Today, the GOP lawmaker filed House Bill 1353 in response to a constituent’s encounter with a group of young men who “wore their pants too low” and became belligerent after they were asked to pull their pants up.

“Personally, I like to see people dressed when they’re in public and I like to see people with their pants up,” Weathersby told Mississippi Today.

“Anti-sagging” provisions have gained some traction over the past couple years. As the Huffington Post points out, communities like Opa-Locka, Florida and Wildwood, New Jersey have adopted bans on sagging pants, and two high school students in Tennessee, both black, were jailed for “indecent exposure” because of their low-riding clothing.

Hinds County, Mississippi made an effort to outlaw sagging by proposing a $10 fine on those who violated the ordinance. In that 2012 case, local government officials equated sagging pants with the Jackson area’s youths’ inability to get jobs.

The Mississippi chapter of the ACLU pushed back, warning that the ordinance may–as ACLU representative Bear Atwood told ABC News–“end up targeting black neighborhoods and, for kids who have done nothing other than wear their pants too low, brings them into contact with the police unnecessarily.” The ordinance was eventually voted down.

Mississippi state’s most recent anti-sagging bill invites a multitude of questions. How low do pants have to be to be considered “indecent and vulgar”? What will psychological and social counseling actually do to prevent this low-hanging atrocity from persisting?

Perhaps, a more prudent question is why do legislatures and local municipalities think it’s okay to legitimize respectability politics in black communities?

To start to define “respectability politics,” we can look to the statement that the Mississippi chapter of the ACLU shared in its response to the Hinds County proposed ordinance:

We all want to see our young people grow into productive, engaged citizens, but this is not the way. Saggy pants bans will have long lasting harm in our communities. Such bans will divert precious resources from law enforcement. Let’s spend those resources on education, after school activities or new text books. Rather than open doors for youth, saggy pants bans will close doors of opportunity.

The Mississippi ACLU statement begins an argument that helps to pinpoint the nucleus of what is wrong with the respectability politics argument: Why should forcing black communities to adapt to standards of “respectability” be a focus for legislation when the culture of poverty is created and exacerbated by discriminatory policies that result in the lack of resources afforded to these communities?

Politics of respectability seek to blame the condition of black lives in America solely on black people–as if their agency is not limited by institutions and structures that are the result of years of discriminatory policies. This presents a flawed reality in which equality for African-American can be achieved if only young black men pulled up their pants and if young black women dressed better.

It also puts the onus on marginalized people to aspire to standards set in the interest of maintaining hierarchy in order to gain some semblance of equality and respect. Respectability politics defines racism as something black Americans will just have to overcome. As Mychal Denzel Smith writes in his book “Invisible Man Got the Whole World Watching,” “It’s only when [black people] live up to the stereotypes that we limit our opportunities.”

Mississippi is a state where African-Americans, who make up almost 40 percent of the state’s population, still suffer from the residual effects of the state’s “Black Codes” and brutal implementation of Jim Crow. It is a state whose flag waves proudly while containing a tribute to the Confederate flag and has school districts that, even 62 years after Brown v. Board of Education, only recently “officially” desegregated. It is also home to one of the nation’s highest poverty rates and worst public school systems.

In HB1353, we see Mississippi’s desire to focus its energy not on actions that will make any attempt to alleviate its many problems, but on bills that criminalize certain choices and create a measurement of a human being’s deservedness of fair and equal treatment based on how many inches one’s pants falls below one’s butt.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Mississippi’s Proposed Sagging Ban is Legitimizing Respectability Politics appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the Mississippi Senate voted not to make domestic abuse a valid reason for getting a divorce. Senate Bill 2418, passed in the house but died in the senate after additional amendments were added.

The state currently has 12 grounds for divorce, and domestic abuse would have been the 13th. Some of the established grounds that warrant divorce are impotency, adultery, habitual drunkenness, and mental illness.

In addition, one of the grounds is “Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.” This seems as if it would satisfy concerns of domestic violence because it is cruel and inhumane treatment. However, as vague as it is, it may not have been effective enough, which is a reason why legislators introduced the amendment.

It is the word “habitual” that raised concerns for legislators like state Sen. Sally Doty, a Republican representing Brookhaven, Mississippi.

“I said it in committee, and I won’t back down from it. I think one instance of domestic violence is enough for me,” Doty told the Jackson Free Press. She added, “I don’t think you should have to say, ‘Oh no, he beat [me] up again,’ and then we’ll see if it doesn’t work out.”

The state senate initially passed the bill, but when the house added a provision to allow divorce after separation for at least two years, it failed to make its way to the governor’s desk. Mississippi is only one of a few states that require fault for a divorce.

One interesting issue with the proposed legislation is that it only discusses physical domestic violence. In instances of emotional, financial, or mental abuse, the amendment would not have been able to have helped.

“I’m in favor of anything that helps our women and children, make life easier, and help them get through the process faster,” Lorine Cady, Founder and Executive Director of House of Grace, said to WREG.

Domestic abuse is a significant issue for many Americans. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV):

• 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime.
• 1 in 5 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

In addition, NCADV also notes, “1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime to the point in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.”

Women and men who find themselves in the position of an abusive and/or violent relationship have a difficult time getting away from their partner. Streamlining the divorce process and making it clearer would be a small step to addressing the issue, giving an individual the tools they need to legally get away from an abusive marriage.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Bill Aimed to Help Domestic Abuse Victims Seek Divorce Fails appeared first on Law Street.

California passed landmark ‘right to die’ legislation last October that will allow terminally ill patients to receive life-ending drugs from their doctors. Now, those who want to request these drugs have an official date when they can do so. California joins Vermont, Oregon, Washington, and Montana to become the fifth state to pass this type of legislation.

The End of Life Option Act will go into effect on June 9, per the 90-day waiting period after the legislative “extraordinary session” adjourned Wednesday.

“Now that the Second Extraordinary Session has been adjourned, terminally ill Californians will finally be able to exercise this right in the State of California,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning said. “Californians will no longer have to leave the state, their families, and their friends if they choose to exercise the end of life option in their final days of life.”

The law requires those seeking end of life treatment to be cleared by two physicians who agree that the patient has six months or less to live. It also requires patients to be able to swallow the medication themselves and affirm in writing that they will do so 48 hours prior to taking the medication. This ensures that the individual is aware of the decision that they are making.

This issue gained notoriety following the case of Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old California woman with terminal brain cancer who moved to Oregon in order to legally end her life in 2014. She created a video documenting her experience leading up to her death and impassioned many lawmakers and citizens to consider the issue. 

Opponents of the law, however, believe that this legislation could lead to premature suicides. The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), an advocate against legalizing assisted suicide, cites many reasons and alternatives that can be done instead of turning to right to die laws:

It is legal in every U.S. state for an individual to create an advance directive that requires the withdrawal of treatment under any conditions the person wishes and for a patient to refuse any treatment or to require any treatment to be withdrawn… And perhaps least understood, for anyone who is dying in discomfort, it is currently legal in any U.S. state to receive palliative sedation, wherein the dying person is sedated so discomfort is relieved during the dying process. 

The group also argues that the legalization of assisted suicide will lead to premature suicides of individuals suffering from mental health issues. It is important to note, though, that an individual requesting these services must be cleared by two physicians certifying that they are terminally ill, not just suffering from certain mental health problems.

“We are looking ahead at measures to protect people from abuse,” Marilyn Golden–a policy analyst at DREDF–told the Associated Press, “and to explore and inform doctors, nurses, and pharmacists that they don’t have to participate.”

Her statement is true; religious institutions, like Catholic hospitals, can opt out and ban their physicians from administering medications for assisted suicide, according to the law.

However, many were very happy with the outcome, which was long awaited. “It gives me a great peace of mind to know that I will not be forced to die slowly and painfully,” Elizabeth Wallner said in a statement from Compassion & Choices, an aid-in-dying advocacy group. She is a single mother with stage four colon cancer that has spread to other organs.

Christy O’Donnell, a former LAPD Sergeant and activist who worked hard to get the legislation passed, died of lung cancer last month. Senator Monning thanked her and others who helped support the bill now that the legislation is scheduled to take effect. “I really believe we use today to mark and dedicate the memory… of some true champions,” Monning said.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Becomes Fifth State to Pass Right to Die Legislation appeared first on Law Street.

For all you milk lovers out there, West Virginia may just be the new place to visit, vacation in, or even move to after this week’s big milk decision. That’s right, you heard me! Raw milk will soon be more accessible in the state of West Virginia for the first time in almost four decades.

Senate Bill 387 was signed by Governor Earl Ray Tomblin on March 3 and will go into effect 90 days later. This bill, which is a newer draft of a bill that failed to pass last year,  specifically legalizes “herd sharing,” or the trading of animals for their milk. The most recent version of the bill also requires the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Resources to work together to create rules that will regulate the distribution and consumption of raw milk, making it more passable. Now, don’t be too quick to celebrate, because the selling of raw milk in West Virginia is still illegal, but it will be easier to get access to raw milk on farms after signing liability waivers.

So, what does this mean for your milk drinking habits? Well, let’s take a second to break down raw milk for those of you who aren’t familiar with this delicacy. Simply put, raw milk is any milk that has not been pasteurized to kill bacteria. It’s a product that has recently been in the spotlight for controversy surrounding its potential health benefits and drawbacks.

It seems like scientists are still in the process of making a judgment on whether raw milk actually is better for you than regular milk, or this whole hypothesis is just a sham. Proponents of the natural movement cite several potential benefits of un-pasteurized milk over your everyday grocery store carton. These benefits include better taste, potential health and allergy benefits, and the freedom argument–we should be able to drink whatever milk we want to drink! On the other side of the issue, raw milk haters claim that raw milk really doesn’t have any benefits relative to pasteurized milk and it is significantly more risky to drink. The CDC falls on that side of the debate, noting “The risks of drinking raw milk outweigh any possible benefits.”

But, regardless of these risk factors, West Virginia has given raw milk the benefit of the doubt! The irony in all this? In the legislature’s celebration after passing this hip new bill, they passed around a glass of milk (unpasteurized, of course) for the entire group to try. A few hours later, several of the delegates who had partaken in the milk festivities became sick with some kind of stomach bug that may or may not be linked to the milk consumption.

Several of the lawmakers claim that they don’t think it was the milk that did them in, but, whatever it was, it certainly does not look good.

The milk enthusiast that day, Representative Scott Cadle, was pushing the other members of the legislative body to “live dangerously” and try the milk. Later that day, after the illness was running rampant, he defended the milk to the Charleston Gazette-Mail, which he did not think was the main cause of illness that day:

With that many people around and that close quarters and in that air and environment, I just call it a big germ. All that Capitol is is a big germ.

It’s unclear whether or not this milk was the source, but pretty much all of the legislators claim that it definitely was not. Is that all just a facade to promote the now-legal raw milk? Who knows.

So, drink up (at your own risk) America. And make sure to click here to learn more about raw milk in your state and to stay updated on all of the rawest raw milk happenings this country has to offer.

To learn more, read: What’s the Deal with Raw Milk?

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Legalize Milk? appeared first on Law Street.

In an exceedingly odd move, a legislative committee in Oklahoma voted this week to eliminate Advanced Placement U.S. History classes. This decision is part of a large, equally bizarre move to get rid of AP classes altogether across the state. Furthermore, the move away from AP U.S. History (APUSH) in Oklahoma is a facet of a much larger debate over what parts of American history we should be teaching our children.

The legislators who pushed for this change in claim that the APUSH curriculum only teaches “what is bad about America.” They also argue that it’s a revisionist view of history. Representative Dan Fish, who introduced the bill, also argues that it doesn’t fairly include a Christian perspective or teach “American exceptionalism.”

Before you think this view is coming from a few crazy crackpots, it’s important to point out that the Republican National Committee itself has weighed in on the debate. Last summer it released a resolution slamming the APUSH curriculum. According to the RNC, the recently revised APUSH guidelines: “reflect a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.”

I’m sure some of you are wondering how people can quibble over history–after all, aren’t most facts undisputed? Well, it’s pretty much universally accepted that history can be taught from different perspectives and through various lenses–take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, for example. One perspective may teach that those bombings, while yielding tragic results, stopped the war and prevented further deaths through protracted fighting. Another perspective could argue that regardless of why the bombs were deployed, the mass destruction of civilians is unacceptable. While neither of these perspectives is necessarily wrong–they do each adhere to the facts of those historical events–they by nature tell different narratives.

So that leaves us with a conundrum–there’s no real right or wrong answer to how we should teach our history. Clearly, some people in Oklahoma disagree with how it’s being taught there, and while I can’t emphasize how much I disagree with their concerns, they are still allowed to have those concerns.

Like I mentioned above, there’s also a bigger debate brewing over the applicability of AP classes in general. They’re standardized nationwide–although of course only students who sign up for the elite classes take them. They are also mostly uniformly accepted by different universities, although they’re applied to university curriculum requirements on a case-by-case basis. Oklahoma lawmakers are trying to do away with those as a whole, too. Another representative, Sally Kern, claims that AP classes violate a law passed in Oklahoma last year that eliminates Common Core standards.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise that states should be able to dictate what their students learn, I think that AP courses fall into a whole different category. First of all, they’re not universally prescribed; each student makes the choice about what class he or she wants to take. Most colleges do view them favorably, and again, they can be used to obtain certain college credits. Robbing Oklahoma’s students of that opportunity just because you don’t agree with the perspective from which the history curriculum is taught seems petty and short-sighted.

History will never be one sizes fits all, and I think that students should have every opportunity to learn about the important events in our nation’s history from as many view points as possible. That being said, with the inability to learn from our APUSH curriculum, Oklahoma’s students have just been robbed as one of those perspectives.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will AP History Become a Thing of the Past in Oklahoma? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new Texas state representative named Molly White. She’s a Republican, represents District 55 in Central Texas, and is a huge bigot.

Why is she a huge bigot? Well, this is a Facebook post from her page a few days ago on Muslim Capitol Day in Texas.

Freshman Rep. Molly White welcomes you to Texas. But not *you.* https://t.co/BHtVRiuKbVpic.twitter.com/CblzqTaRq5

— Scott Bixby (@scottbix) January 29, 2015

There are so, so many things wrong with that post. First of all, White is a representative of the U.S. government. Here in the United States, we have something called “Freedom of Religion.” Obviously White isn’t trying to make a law that prohibits the free practice of religion or anything overtly illegal, but I think we can all agree that this pretty fundamentally stands against the expressed values of the nation she purports to represent. Freedom of Religion is just that. Not “Freedom of Religion only if I like your religion.” Or “Freedom of Religion if you do what I say.” Or “Freedom of Religion only if you prove it.”

White apparently has never imagined how demeaning it would be to prove her “loyalty” to the United States just because she’s in the minority. This myth, conspiracy theory, and thought of pure lunacy that Islam is synonymous with terrorism needs to end. Right Now. As does this habit of asking Muslims to denounce the actions of terrorist groups. It’s demeaning on so many levels, beginning with the fact that it takes almost one quarter of the world’s population and boils every single, diverse, individual member of a major religion down to no more than their religious beliefs. And not only that, it assumes that a quarter of the world’s population supports horrible violent actions in the name of said religion. That’s just insane. That would be like asking all Christians to condemn Timothy McVeigh (the man responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings), or Wade Michael Page (the man responsible for the Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting), or Jared Lee Loughner (the man who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, as well as others).

White’s post also makes an odd, seemingly random mention of the Israeli flag. Seriously? Does she think that Israeli flags are what, kryptonite to Muslims? Is that some weird superstition I’ve never heard of? Does she think that it’s like vampires with garlic? Seriously, Ms. White, what the hell does that even mean?

I don’t even think that White is a bad person. She’s behaving the way that she truly believes is right. She genuinely thinks these horrible things, borne out of misinformation and fear. In some ways that’s worse–I truly don’t think she believes what she did was wrong.

What sparked this disgusting display of bigotry? According to the Texas Tribune:

Texas Muslim Capitol Day, which began in 2003, is organized by the Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and brings members of Muslim communities in Houston, Dallas and other areas of the state to the Capitol to learn about the political process and meet state lawmakers.

Sounds nefarious, truly. So nefarious that White wasn’t the only one who flexed her offensive muscles that day. The day was met with protests, shouts of “go home,” and harassment.

Anti-Islam protesters at Texas Muslim Capitol Day screaming “go home!” and “Mohammad is dead!” #txlegepic.twitter.com/SqF27tK1O1

— Lauren McGaughy (@lmcgaughy) January 29, 2015

There are so many more things that I could say about this. So many times that I could lament the rampant bigotry, Islamophobia, prejudice, and miseducation in this country. So many times I could be sad, so many times I could be angry, so many times I could get into this argument. But I’m going to go one step further. As a white American woman who was raised a Christian, I’m going to go ahead ad renounce State Rep. Molly White and all who think like her, and pledge my allegiance to America and our laws. After all, she and I share some thoughts, so unless I renounce her, everyone will assume that I support her disgusting behavior, right?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything’s Bigger in Texas: Even Islamophobia appeared first on Law Street.